I got1Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemens et al. (GB820673A, hereinafter “Siemens”) in view Weidong et al. (CN105388625A, hereinafter “Weidong”).
Regarding claim1, Siemens discloses:
A dimming device that dims a laser beam radiated from a laser beam irradiation optical, the dimming device comprising: a beam splitter that has an optical thin of several layers (fig.1 [40]) formed close to a surface on which the laser beam is incident, and that, when any orthogonal coordinate axes whose origin in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser beam irradiation optical unit is on the optical axis are defined as an X axis and a Y axis, is disposed so as to be inclined at an angle α of 30° or more and 60° or less with respect to the optical axis with the X axis as a rotation axis (fig.1 Page 1 line 95).
PNG
media_image1.png
821
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig.1)]
Siemens fails to disclose a dimming device comprising a beam splitter that has an optical thin film of 10 or more layers.
Weidong, however, teaches a beam splitter that has an optical film of 10 or more layers formed close to a surface on which the laser beam is incident (claims 1 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the optical film of multi-layer in the dimming device of Siemens with the optical layer of 20 or more of the beam splitter of Weidong. One would have been motivated to add the two components for increase contrast of the dimming device.
Claim 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemens in view of Weidong and Izumi (US2019/01600599, hereinafter “Izumi”).
Regarding claim 2, Siemens and Weidong disclose (see claim 1 rejection):
A dimming device that dims a laser beam radiated from a laser beam irradiation optical, the dimming device comprising: a beam splitter that has an optical thin film of 10 or more layers formed close to a surface on which the laser beam is incident, and that, when any orthogonal coordinate axes whose origin in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser beam irradiation optical unit is on the optical axis are defined as an X axis and a Y axis, is disposed so as to be inclined at an angle α of 30° or more and 60° or less with respect to the optical axis with the X axis as a rotation axis.
Siemens and Weidong fail to disclose a cylindrical light guide unit that holds the beam splitter and has an opening close to at least the laser beam irradiation optical unit.
Izumi, however, discloses a cylindrical light guide unit that holds the beam splitter and has an opening close to at least the laser beam irradiation optical unit (fig. 2, [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the dimming device of Siemens and a more than 10 layers beam splitter of Weidong a cylindrical light guide unit of Izumi. One would have been motivated to add the three components to control transmittance/reflectance and guide light within the dimming device.
Regarding claim 6, Siemens and Weidong disclose (see claim 1 rejection):
A dimming device that dims a laser beam radiated from a laser beam irradiation optical, the dimming device comprising: a beam splitter that has an optical thin film of 10 or more layers formed close to a surface on which the laser beam is incident, and that, when any orthogonal coordinate axes whose origin in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser beam irradiation optical unit is on the optical axis are defined as an X axis and a Y axis, is disposed so as to be inclined at an angle α of 30° or more and 60° or less with respect to the optical axis with the X axis as a rotation axis.
Siemens and Weidong fail to disclose an observation device configured to observe a laser beam dimmed by the dimming device.
However, Izumi teaches an observation (measurement) device (item 15 in fig2, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the laser dimming device of Siemens in view of Weidong with the measurement device of the laser machining device of Izumi to conceive a laser beam measurement device. One would have been motivated to combine the three devices to improve the function and safety of the laser measurement device.
PNG
media_image2.png
812
1012
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig.2)]
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemens in view of Weidong and Memesawa and al. (JP199911312330, hereinafter “Memesawa”).
Regarding claim 3, Siemens and Weidong disclose (see claim 1 rejection):
A dimming device that dims a laser beam radiated from a laser beam irradiation optical, the dimming device comprising: a beam splitter that has an optical thin film of 10 or more layers formed close to a surface on which the laser beam is incident, and that, when any orthogonal coordinate axes whose origin in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser beam irradiation optical unit is on the optical axis are defined as an X axis and a Y axis, is disposed so as to be inclined at an angle α of 30° or more and 60° or less with respect to the optical axis with the X axis as a rotation axis.
Siemens and Weidong fail to disclose a beam splitter that includes a transmission type in which a transmittance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of the laser beam on the beam splitter is the angle α is 2.0% or less and that satisfies following Conditional Expression (1): or a reflection type in which a reflectance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of the laser beam on the beam splitter is the angle α is 2.0% or less and that satisfies following Conditional Expression (2): 0≤(Tmax-Tmin)/Tave≤0.05 ... (1) 0≤(Rmax-Rmin)/Rave≤0.05 ... (2) where Tmax is a maximum value of a transmittance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the transmission type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less, Tmin is a minimum value of a transmittance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the transmission type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less, Tave is an average value of transmittances of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the transmission type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less, Rmax is a maximum value of a reflectance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the reflection type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less, Rmin is a minimum value of the reflectance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the reflection type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less, and Rave is an average value of reflectances of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the reflection type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less.
The claimed ranges pertain to consistent transmittivity/reflectance across the range of incidence angles.
Memesawa, however, teaches a small incidence angle dependence (abstract). Further, one of ordinary skill would have selected a transmittance or reflectance of the beam splitter to be 2.0% or less according to design choice for a specific need.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the dimming device to have a transmittance or reflectance as proposed with a small incidence angle dependence to ensure uniform performance across a range of angles.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi in view of Siemens and Weidong.
Regarding claim 4, Izumi discloses:
A laser machining device comprising: a laser beam irradiation optical unit (item 11 in fig2, [0024]) configured to irradiate an object to be machining processed with a laser beam collected and condensed, a spot being formed at the object to be machining processed, to perform laser machining.
Izumi fails to disclose:
A dimming device configured to dim the laser beam radiated from the laser beam irradiation optical unit by using a beam splitter that has an optical thin film of 10 or more layers formed close to a surface on which the laser beam is incident, and that, when any orthogonal coordinate axes whose origin in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser beam irradiation optical unit is on the optical axis are defined as an X axis and a Y axis, is disposed so as to be inclined at an angle α of 30° or more and 60° or less with respect to the optical axis with the X axis as a rotation axis.
However, Siemens in view of Weidong, disclose:
A dimming device that dims a laser beam radiated from a laser beam irradiation optical, the dimming device comprising: a beam splitter that has an optical thin film of 10 or more layers formed close to a surface on which the laser beam is incident, and that, when any orthogonal coordinate axes whose origin in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser beam irradiation optical unit is on the optical axis are defined as an X axis and a Y axis, is disposed so as to be inclined at an angle α of 30° or more and 60° or less with respect to the optical axis with the X axis as a rotation axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the laser machining device of Izumi a diming device of Siemens in view of Weidong. One would have been motivated to add the three components to increase the contrast of the laser machining device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi in view of Siemens, Weidong, and Memesawa.
Regarding claim 5, Izumi, Siemens, and Weidong disclose a laser machining device comprising: a laser beam irradiation optical unit configured to irradiate an object to be machining processed with a laser beam collected and condensed, a spot being formed at the object to be machining processed, to perform laser machining; and a dimming device configured to dim the laser beam radiated from the laser beam irradiation optical unit by using a beam splitter that has an optical thin film of 10 or more layers formed close to a surface on which the laser beam is incident, and that, when any orthogonal coordinate axes whose origin in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser beam irradiation optical unit is on the optical axis are defined as an X axis and a Y axis, is disposed so as to be inclined at an angle α of 30° or more and 60° or less with respect to the optical axis with the X axis as a rotation axis.
Izumi, Siemens, and Weidong fail to disclose a beam splitter that includes a transmission type in which a transmittance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of the laser beam on the beam splitter is the angle α is 2.0% or less and that satisfies following Conditional Expression (1): or a reflection type in which a reflectance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of the laser beam on the beam splitter is the angle α is 2.0% or less and that satisfies following Conditional Expression (2): 0≤(Tmax-Tmin)/Tave≤0.05 ... (1) 0≤(Rmax-Rmin)/Rave≤0.05 ... (2) where Tmax is a maximum value of a transmittance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the transmission type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less, Tmin is a minimum value of a transmittance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the transmission type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less, Tave is an average value of transmittances of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the transmission type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less, Rmax is a maximum value of a reflectance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the reflection type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less, Rmin is a minimum value of the reflectance of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the reflection type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less, and Rave is an average value of reflectances of the beam splitter when an incident angle of a laser beam on the reflection type beam splitter is in a range of α-5° or more and α+5° or less.
The claimed ranges pertain to consistent transmittivity/reflectance across the range of incidence angles.
Memesawa, however, teaches a small incidence angle dependence (abstract). Further, one of ordinary skill would have selected a transmittance or reflectance of the beam splitter to be 2.0% or less according to design choice for a specific need.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the dimming device to have a transmittance or reflectance as proposed with a small incidence angle dependence to ensure uniform performance across a range of angles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCK ASSOGBA ONANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-5325. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2871
/MICHAEL H CALEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights